#Public Service Law

The Punjab & Haryana High Court set aside the Haryana PSC’s post-shortlisting interview cut-off, finding that mid-process changes to recruitment criteria breach constitutional equality and reservation guarantees. It ordered a fresh evaluation of candidates strictly per the original advertisement’s minimum qualifying marks, protecting all aspirants affected by the arbitrary change.

The Supreme Court ruled that a compulsory retirement order under Rule 56(j) of the Central Industrial Security Force’s Fundamental Rules is a non-punitive service measure, not subject to natural-justice safeguards, and can be challenged only on grounds of arbitrariness or mala-fides. This narrows the scope of judicial review for senior officers facing retirement at the age of 50.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed that employees with certified 40% permanent disability must have their transfer requests reconsidered under Clause 28 of the state’s transfer policy, even when administrative exigency is claimed. This ruling reinforces the duty to provide reasonable accommodation in public employment and sets a binding precedent for disability-sensitive administrative decisions across state departments.

MP High Court stays the transfer of a cancer-afflicted employee to a rural post 50 km away, ruling that health considerations must inform administrative decisions. The court directed the competent authority to decide the employee’s representation within 30 days, reinforcing natural justice in service law.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a candidate's inadvertent selection of an incorrect reservation category, without availing any benefit under it, does not justify cancellation of candidature. This protects applicants from punitive consequences for clerical mistakes when they remain eligible under their true category, reinforcing procedural fairness in public recruitment.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court applied the Supreme Court's Rafiq Masih ruling to shield a retired Class-IV employee from recovery of Rs. 1,00,528, reinforcing that low-grade public servants and retirees cannot be subjected to retrospective financial clawbacks. The judgment underscores equity in administrative law, protecting vulnerable employees from undue hardship.

Uttarakhand High Court rules that candidates excluded from a revised cut-off list due to recomputation of exam results hold no indefeasible right to proceed to the next stage. The court emphasized that selection lists remain provisional until finalization, rejecting claims of vested rights under natural justice principles.

Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that a 2014 transfer order to a lecturer constituted a permanent posting, not a temporary attachment. The court set aside a subsequent relief order by the Principal under a circular, holding it illegal and violative of natural justice principles. The judgment reinforces that administrative actions must align with substantive postings, not mere procedural formalities.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that candidates eligible for BPL category benefits must be granted 10 marks in recruitment merit lists if their inclusion in the BPL list occurred before the advertisement date, regardless of when the physical card was issued. This sets a binding precedent for all state-run schemes involving social welfare-based reservations in public employment, ensuring procedural fairness over bureaucratic delays.

Calcutta High Court rules that appointing an enquiry officer who was also a witness in the same case amounts to irreconcilable bias, rendering the entire disciplinary proceeding void. The judgment reinforces that public employers must ensure impartiality in departmental enquiries to comply with principles of natural justice.

Jharkhand High Court rules that authorities cannot retrospectively add adverse remarks to Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) based on uncommunicated misconduct, even on remand. The judgment reinforces that service records must be expunged of such entries to uphold natural justice and Article 14, setting a precedent for fair administrative proceedings in public employment.

MP High Court reaffirms that employees cannot challenge date of birth entries in service records at the fag end of their career, dismissing a writ petition filed after 60 years of service. The ruling underscores administrative stability and bars belated claims, impacting public employment disputes.

The Central Administrative Tribunal quashed a dismissal order after finding that a senior officer who filed an FIR against a subordinate could not simultaneously act as the disciplinary authority, violating the foundational principle of impartiality. This ruling reinforces that administrative fairness demands separation between accuser and adjudicator - a critical safeguard for public sector employees facing dual-track criminal and service proceedings.

The Rajasthan High Court has ruled that government employees retiring without any pending disciplinary or judicial proceedings are entitled to immediate payment of provisional pension under Rules 86 and 90, regardless of delays in finalizing permanent pension. This binding directive protects retirees from financial hardship and mandates administrative compliance, reinforcing pension as a vested right, not a discretionary benefit.

Calcutta High Court rules that suspended municipal employees under the WB Municipal Employees Rules, 2010, are entitled to subsistence allowance as a statutory right, regardless of the suspension's validity. The Court also invalidates disciplinary proceedings initiated by an authority lacking competence, reinforcing procedural safeguards in service law.